Trying to understand what the difference is between an image that is alive and one that is dead. Looking at some of my prints, there are some that are alive, they have a voice and a life of their own. There are others that appear to be dead and have no voice. I can’t see what the difference is between the two except one looks dead and the other looks alive.
Started reading The Master and his Emissary – the divided brain and the wester world by Iain McGilchrist.
He argues that the two hemispheres of the brain have not merely different skills,but have very different perspectives on the world. He sees the differences lying not, as has been supposed, in the What – which skills each hemisphere possesses – but in the how, the way in which each uses them, and to what end. McGilchrist draws on a vast body of recent brain reasearch and illustrates his thesis with fascinating case studies.
He suggests that the left hemisphere is designed to exploit the world effectively, but is narrow in focus and favours theory rather than experience. It rejects living things in preference for mechanisms ignoring whatever is not explicit, despite evidence to the contrary is absolutely certain of itself and lacks empathy. In contrast the right hemisphere has a broader and much more subtle understanding of the world but lacks the certainty to counter assertions of the left hemisphere.
The metaphor of the master and the emassary in the title of the book is based on the understanding that the relationship between the hemisphere is not symetrical. The left hemisphere, though unaware of its dependence, could be thought of as an ’emissary’ of the right hemisphere, valuable for taking on a role that it – the ‘Master’ – cannot itself afford to undertake. However it turns out that the emissary has his own will, and secretly believes himself to be superior to the Master. And he has the means to betray him. What he doesn’t realise is that in doing so he will also betray himself.
Most of my recent images have been put together digitaly using images made in “natural” media. It’s a great way to work collaboratively as none of the original work is destroyed. Although the digital prints do live they lack the texture and depth of an etching or woodcut. There is a also temptation to build in too many layers of information into an image and it becomes technical, clever and dead. The old rules of simple is best and less is more need to be strctly applied to ensure digital images sing and be more than just an exercise in cleverness. Nobody likes a smart ass.
There doesn’t appear to be an obvious way to contact people who respond to a blog except to write another blog?
Thinking some more about titling work
The finished work requires a viewer. In fact the image demands to be seen as this is how it becomes alive. This is when a new narrative is forged between the image and others viewing it. The relationship developed between the image and viewers depends on an interplay and resonance between the image the viewers and their memories, dreams and experiences. The title of a piece may direct the viewer to make a specific relationship with it. I prefer the the relationship between the viewer and my work to be unmediated by titles, the ones I provide should be seen as my introduction of the image to the viewer.
I find it very difficult to title images.
